Letters to the Editor: After the abortion pill, what's next? A judge setting the prime rate?

Los Angeles Times Opinion
Updated ·3 min read
FILE - Boxes of the drug mifepristone line a shelf at the West Alabama Women's Center in Tuscaloosa, Ala., on March 16, 2022. Medication abortions became the preferred method for ending pregnancy in the U.S. even before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade (AP Photo/Allen G. Breed, File)
Boxes of the drug mifepristone line a shelf at the West Alabama Women's Center in Tuscaloosa, Ala., on March 16, 2022. (Allen G. Breed / Associated Press)

To the editor: U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk's attempt to restrict the distribution of mifepristone by suspending its U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorization is not just an assault on abortion rights. It is also perhaps the most extreme example of judicial overreach since Bush vs. Gore in 2000.

If a single federal judge can erase the FDA's years-long scientific study of a drug, and do so for purely political and religious reasons, then what is to stop another extremist judge from, say, setting the prime rate? Shall a judge, inspired by his beliefs, rule that HIV drugs are not safe?

The time is long overdue to curb the federal courts and stop this insane trend of interest groups shopping for politically sympathetic judges who feel they can impose their views on the whole country — the law, science, regulatory frameworks, centuries of precedent and the U.S. Constitution be damned.

Thomas McGrath, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: So where does any judge's power end if lifesaving medication can be made illegal by one person? Why do we even have an FDA if judges without any scientific expertise can overturn the work of the scientists in the FDA?

What will one judge decide to go after next? Will the next judge use their religious beliefs to make blood transfusions illegal? Will the next judge's religious beliefs couched in pseudo-science deny heart transplants?

When did all of the citizens of the United States decide to turn over our access to medical care to a single judge's decision? I certainly don't remember anything about that in my classes on government.

Kathryn Pisaro, Granada Hills

..

To the editor: How ironic. On a day when 2.6 billion Christians celebrate life, Easter Sunday, The Times publishes an editorial in the paper promoting the cessation of life through medication abortion.

Although the editorial repeatedly uses the word "safe" or a similar form, the womb of the pregnant mother might not be so safe for the life of some pre-born children.

Wesley Stalnaker, Santa Clarita

..

To the editor: Let's be clear: Blocking access to care will not end abortions. Coat hangers, underground abortion providers with differing levels of knowledge, methods and experience, and potentially lethal pills will take its place.

Women who want or need an abortion will find a way, often at great cost to their health or even their lives.

Alison M. Grimes, Yorba Linda

..

To the editor: Since women's rights are being systematically taken away, and in light of the ruling by a federal judge in Texas, I demand that Viagra and Cialis be taken off the market as well.

Either that, or vasectomies should be mandatory after a man fathers two children.

Cheryl Little, Pasadena

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.